Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Experience of Introverted Students On A Residential College C
The Experience of Introverted Students On A Residential College C
2016
Recommended Citation
Gleason, Erica, "The Experience of Introverted Students on a Residential College Campus" (2016). Master of Arts in Higher Education
Thesis Collection. 22.
http://pillars.taylor.edu/mahe/22
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Pillars at Taylor University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Arts in Higher
Education Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of Pillars at Taylor University. For more information, please contact aschu@tayloru.edu.
THE EXPERIENCE OF INTROVERTED STUDENTS
_______________________
A thesis
Presented to
Taylor University
Upland, Indiana
______________________
In Partial Fulfillment
_______________________
by
Erica Gleason
May 2016
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
_________________________
MASTER’S THESIS
_________________________
Erica Gleason
entitled
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the
May 2016
__________________________ _____________________________
Drew Moser, Ph.D. Date Scott Gaier, Ph.D. Date
Thesis Supervisor Member, Thesis Hearing Committee
_____________________________
Steve Bedi, Ph.D. Date
Member, Thesis Hearing Committee
______________________________
Tim Herrmann, Ph.D. Date
Director, M.A. in Higher Education and Student Development
iii
Abstract
The residential college setting often seems dominated by social opportunities and
experiences, which may not prove conducive to the dispositions and preferences of
introverted students. The current study sought to describe the overall experience of
they face and how they respond. Using a qualitative, phenomenological design, the study
and involvement in college. The researcher interviewed nine junior and senior students
involvement on campus. Interview data yielded four themes describing the residential
and advantages associated with introversion. They provided depth and stability in
friendships but experienced the process of becoming friends gradually. While satisfied
students were highly involved, found both challenge and benefit in their involvement, and
gradually learned to lead out of their strengths and preferences as introverts. Implications
Acknowledgements
In many ways, this document is a product not only of my own time and effort, but
also of the people, places, and processes that have guided me along the way.
Steve, Matt, Brittane, Wil, Katie, and the rest of TSO, thank you for being my
team—in every sense of the word—these last two years. You’re the people who have
kept me grounded, who have sat with me, who have laughed with me, and who have
supervisors, thank you for being a significant step on my path toward calling, for giving
me space to become who I am, and for encouraging me toward the field of student
development.
MAHE Cohort 8, thank you for being my people. You’ve taught me more about
community member. These two years have been an inexpressibly odd, stretching, and
fun season, and I’m grateful to have shared them with you, and to embark on the journey
Drew Moser, Scott Gaier, and Shawnda Freer, thank you for being my guides in
the thesis process. This is a process I’ve immensely enjoyed and from which I’ve learned
so much about being curious and treasuring and trusting the process. Thank you for your
All glory to God. May this work serve toward the call to care for others and to be
for one another in the wonderful, terrifying, and mysterious process of learning together.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv
Introversion ..............................................................................................................2
Problem ....................................................................................................................3
Conclusion .............................................................................................................18
Context ...................................................................................................................21
Participants .............................................................................................................21
Summary ................................................................................................................40
Introduction ............................................................................................................41
Conclusion .............................................................................................................52
References ..........................................................................................................................53
Chapter 1
Introduction
involvement, and exposure to new experiences (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Many
situations and experiences impact students, but students’ own personal characteristics
play a role in their experiences, too. Personality influences the way students receive and
respond to the challenges presented by the college environment and may affect processes
so many factors, a need exists to understand which facets of personality carry the most
Under the large umbrella of personality are introversion and extraversion, two
personality types that describe the direction of one’s focus and energy and significantly
impact one’s day to day living (Cain, 2012). An individual’s level of introversion or
extraversion determines how he or she responds to and interacts with his or her
environment, including how he or she processes information and relates to others (Myers,
personality factors can prove helpful both to students and higher education practitioners.
2
Introversion
temperament or disposition that prefers the inner world. Approximately one third to one
half of Americans identify as introverts: they focus and derive energy from internal
sources such as concepts, ideas, and internal experiences (Cain, 2012; Myers et al.,
1998). Introverts obtain energy from time spent alone or with small groups of friends,
usually prefer listening, like to focus deliberately on one task at a time, and often appear
reserved and reflective (Cain, 2012; Nelson, Thorne, & Shapiro, 2011; Quenk, 2009).
In many studies, the difference between introversion and shyness has remained
Nesdale, 2012). Unlike shyness, introversion is not defined by social discomfort, tension,
or anxiety but by a lack of energy focused on or obtained from social settings and other
external sources (Cheek & Buss, 1981). Those introverted and those shy may both avoid
social interactions but for different reasons. The difference, though perhaps difficult to
observe, has implications for the college experience, making it important to distinguish
The college years contain multiple transitions and tasks associated with emerging
adulthood (Arnett, 2000; Pittman & Richmond, 2008). As college students explore the
possibilities of life, they experience changes and development in faith, relationships, and
identity (Arnett, 2000; Barry et al., 2013; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). While tasks of
social settings (Arnett, 2000). During college, many changes and developmental
3
experiences result from peer interaction in residence halls, student clubs or organizations,
involvement provide social settings that can play key roles in students’ development
(Astin, 1984; Blimling, 2015; Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Schroeder & Jackson, 1987).
residence halls provide challenge and support (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schroeder
& Jackson, 1987). Friendships and other meaningful relationships play an important role
and experiences that contribute to student development (Astin, 1984; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). Because each of these major components of the college experience
prove highly socialized, a need exists to explore how a personality disposition such as
introversion might influence a student’s engagement with and experience of the living
Problem
While introverts prefer social settings less often than extraverts do, social
opportunities and experiences dominate the college setting. The extraverted values of
class participation, and community living (Blimling, 2015; Rocca, 2010; Shertzer &
Schuh, 2004). In addition to the extraverted values of American culture reflected in the
“Extravert Ideal,” or the belief that the ideal person seems outgoing, social, and quick to
act (Cain, 2012). The prevailing extravert ideal and highly social emphases of the college
setting may not prove conducive to the dispositions and preferences of introverted
students. Indeed, an introverted student living and studying on a residential campus may
at times feel out of place and exhausted by the demands of an extraverted culture.
Previous studies point to the differences between extraverts and introverts in adjusting,
leading, and making friends during college (Bauer & Liang, 2003; Nelson & Thorne,
2012; Shertzer & Schuh, 2004), but there remains a need to describe the overall
recognizes that introverts learn and relate differently than extraverts (Cain, 2012; Nelson
et al., 2011; Pannapacker, 2012; Rocca, 2010; Salisbury, 2014). While not surprising
based on theories of introversion and extraversion, the reality that introverts and
extraverts approach the same experiences differently calls for adjustments both by
individuals and by an increasingly extraverted society. The results of this study can
2. How does a student’s introversion influence the way he or she experiences the
Chapter 2
Literature Review
and affects how emerging adults experience college (Arnett, 2000; Barry et al., 2013;
Cain, 2012; Provost & Anchors, 1987). In particular, introverted students may
introverted students’ experience (Barry et al., 2013; DiTiberio & Hammer, 1993). In
order to support this study’s exploration of the way introverted students experience
extraversion and specifically defines introversion. This section also discusses the impact
among personality, emerging adulthood, and formative aspects of the college experience,
Theories of Introversion-Extraversion
determine the focus of a person’s energy (Jung, Read, Fordham, & Adler, 1953). The
introvert focuses on subjective factors, while the extravert focuses on objective factors
6
(Jung et al., 1953). In other words, introverts’ energy channels inward and extraverts’
energy channels outward. Lieberman and Rosenthal (2001) described Jung’s theory in
terms of “attentional orientation”: “for the introvert, the stimuli deemed worthy of
attention are those of the introvert’s own mind… the internal reaction takes precedence
over the thing reacted to, out in the world,” while the extravert pays attention to the
“tangible reality” (p. 295). Another important part of Jung’s theory of psychological
types states that no one can remain purely introverted or purely extraverted (Jung et al.,
1953). All people have some balance of both, but most prefer either introversion or
According to Eysenck, introverts have “higher baseline levels of cortical arousal,” which
means they have naturally higher levels of sensory stimulation than extraverts do
(Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001, p. 295). Thus, extraverts pursue activities that “involve
greater sensory stimulation” (p. 295), such as social interaction. Put simply, introverts
experience more stimulation by their own thoughts than extraverts do, providing them
from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), grounded in Jungian theory and dating
back to the 1940s (Quenk, 2009). The MBTI contains four dichotomous categories, each
with two “preference poles,” toward one of which every individual has an “innate
disposition,” resulting in a four letter type (, p. 5). The beginning letter of each type,
The inclination for extraversion or introversion denotes the individual’s preference for
7
either the inner or outer world (Myers & Myers, 2010). The preference for introversion
process is judging, his or her judgment focuses on the internal world of ideas, while the
auxiliary process of sensing or feeling addresses matters of the outer world of action
The introvert’s main interests are in the inner world of concepts and ideas, while
the extravert is more involved with the outer world of people and things.
judgment upon ideas, while the extrovert likes to focus them on the outside
environment. (p. 7)
An overview of Jung, Eysenck, and Myers and Briggs indicates introversion and
extraversion as descriptions of how an individual directs his or her energy and interacts
with the inner world and the outer world. The existing theories of introversion-
person’s attention and natural and needed levels of stimulation. The following section
existing in the world, describing the direction of one’s attention and energy (DiTiberio &
Hammer, 1993; Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). The present research defined
introversion as a preference for the inner world and the focus and derivation of energy
8
from internal sources rather than external sources (Jung et al., 1953; Laney, 2002; Myers
& Myers, 2010). People exhibit this preference as introverts, who Myers et al. (1998)
defined as those “oriented primarily toward the inner world; thus they tend to focus their
functioning. Unlike extraverts, who surround themselves with numerous friends and
enjoy small talk, introverts prefer intimate friendships and depth in conversation (Cain,
2012; Laney, 2002; Nelson et al., 2011). They prefer “richness” to “muchness” (Laney,
2002, p. 24). They prefer listening to talking, often express themselves better in writing,
and think deeply before they talk or act (Cain, 2012; DiTiberio & Hammer, 1993;
Helgoe, 2008; Quenk, 2009). Because of their devotion of energy to “the inner world of
ideas, reflection, and internal experiences” (Quenk, 2009, p. 8), introverts feel energized
by time spent alone. Other words frequently used to describe introverts include reserved,
cautious, focused, quiet, and reflective (Cain, 2012; Cheek & Buss, 1981; Gudjonsson,
Nesdale, 2012), but many studies indicate that shyness differs from introversion (Barry et
al., 2013; Bowker & Raja, 2010; Cheek & Buss, 1981). The key distinction of shyness is
anxiety. In a study of the difference between shyness and sociability, Cheek and Buss
(1981) concluded, “Shyness is something other than merely low sociability” (p. 333). If
sociability prefers the company of others, low sociability simply lacks that preference.
Shy people, on the other hand, may desire the company of others but experience fear, low
self-esteem, and discomfort in the presence of others (Cheek & Buss, 1981).
9
social withdrawal and can have different causes and motivations (Barry et al., 2013;
Bowker & Raja, 2010). Unsociability represents a “benign” type of social withdrawal
because unsocial individuals may not initiate social interactions, but they do not avoid
them altogether and thus do not experience the internalizing issues, loneliness, or inept
social skills characteristic of shy peers (Bowker & Raja, 2010, p. 210). The research on
asocial or unsocial individuals provides definitions similar to the words used to describe
introversion, pointing to introverts as not necessarily shy. They may prefer to withdraw
from social situations but simply out of dispositional preference, not fear or anxiety.
Cain (2012) described as “the Extrovert Ideal” (p. 4). According to Cain, the extravert
ideal presents the ideal person as outgoing, quick to take action, social, and comfortable
with attention. Indeed, similar to Cain, other researchers point to the many advantages
that extraverts have in the classroom, workplace, and social atmosphere (Bowker & Raja,
2010; Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Hendrick & Brown, 1971; Lieberman &
Rosenthal, 2001; McCroskey, Burroughs, Daun, & Richmond, 1990; Myers & Myers,
2010; Toma, 2015). Jung et al. (1953) acknowledged the common depreciating view of
introverts and “present extraverted sense of values” (p. 375), and as Myers and Myers
(2010) pointed out, Jung’s theory, by failing to present the effectiveness of introverts in
the outer world, contributes to the misunderstanding of Jungian theory and leaves room
first and then define introversion in the negative form of language used to describe
extraverts (Bowker & Raja, 2010; Gudjonsson et al., 2004; Harrington & Loffredo, 2010;
Lischetzke & Eid, 2006). For example, while extraverts seem sociable, active,
and lacking in assertiveness (Barry et al., 2013; Gudjonsson et al., 2004). Studies also
(Lierberman & Rosenthal, 2001, p. 307), and their operation in the inner world of ideas
seems a disadvantage as they engage with the outer world (Myers & Myers, 2010). Thus,
characterized by teamwork, and schools represent social settings designed for group
learning (Cain, 2012). The college setting stresses polished verbal performance in the
classroom, places students in social living arrangements, and believes social relationships
impact adjustment and development significantly (Nelson et al., 2011; Rocca, 2010).
Where group interaction and verbal performance become required, introverts may not
evaluated introverted and extraverted strangers, Hendrick and Brown (1971) found both
interesting at a party, ideal personality, and leadership. These results indicate extraverts
11
may not only have an advantage in the classroom but also in social situations, where
many favor the outgoing, charming personality type over the reserved type.
While there remains a perceived disadvantage for introverts who must succeed in
the outer world (Myers & Myers, 2010), some within the realm of higher education
recognize college can unintentionally favor extraverts; these practitioners seek to spread
impact how students experience college in the same way that demographic differences
college in the same way extraverts do, many institutions create an extravert privilege and
carving out hierarchies or normative standards” and described themselves “on the inferior
end of a personality hierarchy” (p. 136). Others who recognize the advantages introverts
bring call for a more balanced perspective. Introverts’ strengths may not seem as
outwardly noticeable and accepted as those of extraverts, but as Myers and Myers (2010)
how they navigate the tasks of emerging adulthood. Traditionally-aged college students,
for most people, as they examine the life possibilities open to them and gradually arrive
at more enduring choices in love, work, and worldviews” (Arnett, 2000, p. 279).
According to Arnett’s theory, emerging adults explore and experience significant changes
remains unclear how introversion affects this stage of life. In a study comparing groups
of shy, asocial (or introverted), and “normal” college students, Barry et al. (2013) noted
that each of these three groups approached the traditional tasks associated with emerging
development, and relationship quality. The researchers argued the explorations and tasks
of emerging adulthood occur primarily in social contexts, making it difficult for shy and
introverted individuals to adjust in the same ways as their non-shy, social peers. Indeed,
the study indicated shy students struggled in all three areas (identity development,
difference in relationship quality than the normal comparison group. These results
gained support from a similar study that showed few differences between unsociable
and internalizing characteristics (Nelson, 2013). Thus, while introverted emerging adults
seem to obtain results for identity development, faith development, and relationships
comparable to their non-introverted peers, further research must explore how the
difficulties introverts have engaging the outer world impact their overall journey through
the highly socialized stage of emerging adulthood and specifically the college experience.
13
they enter college, students face “multiple transitions, including changes in their living
“greater independence and responsibility in their personal and academic lives” (Pittman
& Richmond, 2008, p. 344). Social, emotional, and personality factors impact the way
students adapt to these changes (Bauer & Liang, 2003; Pritchard & Wilson, 2003;
Pritchard, Wilson, & Yamnitz, 2007). For example, when investigating the effect of
significantly and positively related to students’ effort in personal and social activities.
First-year students who welcomed new experiences and risks, a characteristic connected
to extraversion (Raynor & Levine, 2009), more likely engaged in new academic and
social activities, leading to greater gains in critical thinking and academic performance
(Bauer & Liang, 2003). Thus, students’ levels of introversion or extraversion appear to
influence the way they approach their college experience and the resulting outcomes.
As evidenced by the gaps between research on shyness and the role of extraverted
qualities in college adjustment, a need exists to further explore the connection between
introverted students’ personalities and their college experience (Barry et al., 2013;
Pritchard et al., 2007; Swenson, Nordstrom, & Hiester, 2008). The rest of this literature
environment, friendships, and student involvement and leadership—in order to set the
positively impacts adjustment and sense of university belonging (Pittman & Richmond,
2008; Swenson et al., 2008). However, introverts and extraverts develop and experience
relationships differently (Nelson & Thorne, 2012). First, the extravert more likely
interacts with other people and enters into and enjoys social settings (Harkins, Becker, &
Stonner, 1975; Lucas & Diener, 2001). Second, extraverts and introverts experience the
process of becoming friends differently. According to Nelson and Thorne (2012), “If
friendship formation were like entering a swimming pool, entry with an extraverted
partner would feel like jumping in, whereas entry with an introverted partner would feel
like dipping one’s toes into the water and slowly becoming immersed” (p. 609).
introverts play different roles in friendships (Nelson et al., 2011). Introverts often enjoy
spending time with friends close to home, provide stability in friendships, slowly
welcome outsiders, listen more than talk, and gradually disclose personal and emotional
experiences. Nelson et al. (2011) described these preferences but found mutually
paired with extravert) mutually accommodated one another. Introverts and extraverts
approach and experience friendship differently, and, because friendships play a major
role in college adjustment and outcomes, it is important to explore how this difference
slower, more intense pace than extraverts do, and a deeper understanding of their
15
friendship experiences during the college years could inform ways of appropriately
The residential environment. Where a student lives during his or her college
years is an important part of the college experience. The residential environment can be a
key source of the challenge, support, learning, and satisfaction necessary for student
development (Blimling, 2015; Gerst & Moos, 1972; Sanford, 1966; Schroeder &
Jackson, 1987). Because introverts and extraverts need different levels of stimulation and
energy and relate to people in different ways, they may experience the residential
environment, along with the challenge and support it offers, differently (Schroeder &
Jackson, 1987). For example, extraverts need more stimulation in the living environment
than introverts do, often reflected in the way they personalize and maintain their living
space (Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). According to a study of students’ ideal and
and a variety of activities, while introverts desire a focus on academics or other pursuits
with an inward focus (Grandpre, 1995). Because extraverts are more likely than
introverts to express expectations of a residence hall environment, take social risks, and
sacrifice academics for social activities, extraverted students are “predisposed to ‘fit in’
within the residence community” (Rodger & Johnson, 2005, p. 95). In an environment
focused on spontaneity and social activities, it appears that introverts may experience
imbalanced levels of challenge and support and reduced feelings of belonging (Rodger &
The differences in students’ ideal and perceived residence hall environment are
important not only in the context of a student’s hall or floor, but also in the roommate
16
factors contributing to student satisfaction in the residence hall (Foubert, Tepper, &
Morrison, 1998). Study and sleeping habits are important dimensions of roommate
compatibility, yet introverts and extraverts often differ greatly in their habits of sleep and
study (Schroeder & Jackson, 1987). Because of these differences, introverts and
extraverts may feel less supported when paired together in a living environment and
“may find it difficult to feel at home and simply be themselves with one another”
(Schroeder & Jackson, 1987, p. 78). The residential environment influences the overall
college experience, affecting the degree to which students pursue relationships and seek
involvement (Gerst & Moos, 1972). It is therefore critical to understand how introverted
needs and preferences in relationships and the living environment, they also differ in
levels and types of involvement in college. Involvement, defined by Astin (1984) as the
amount of physical and psychological energy a student invests in his or her experience, is
involvement in the form of extracurricular activities provides an outlet for expression and
can contribute to student satisfaction and well-being (Provost & Anchors, 1987). Forms
interaction, and involvement in a residence hall (Astin, 1984). Because introverts and
extraverts focus their energy differently, they often focus their involvement in the college
experience in different ways. For example, extraverts devote more time and interest to
17
social involvement, such as attending parties and committing to Greek membership, than
introverts do (Bauer & Liang, 2003; Provost & Anchors, 1987; Toma, 2015). Introverts
typically enjoy smaller group or one on one interactions, solitude, and intellectual
pursuits (Provost & Anchors, 1987; Toma, 2015). Toma (2015) connected introverts’
processing sensitivity, reflectivity, and low reward sensitivity. That is, introverts were
more likely to choose forms of involvement that placed them in less overwhelming
environments than extraverts chose, were less swayed by social rewards than extraverts,
and reflected deeply on the purpose and significance of their involvement. They were
highly motivated by personal development, and thus often chose to pursue growth in
uncomfortable situations (Toma, 2015). Further research must explore how introversion
the college setting, it is apparent that extraverted traits are considered ideal for leadership
roles, but that introverts are capable leaders. In a study of college student perceptions of
leadership, Shertzer and Schuh (2004) found that students have empowering and
constraining beliefs that either motivate them to pursue a leadership position or cause
them to self-select out of leadership opportunities. One of the most important leadership
qualities identified by both student leaders and disengaged students was extraversion; all
student leaders in the study identified as extraverts and “believed that extraverts had an
advantage over introverts in securing leadership roles and positions at their institution”
(Shertzer & Schuh, 2004, p. 119). Disengaged students believed that personality
18
constrained their leadership potential, but voiced the possibility that introverts could
exhibit quieter, “behind the scenes” leadership (Shertzer & Schuh, 2004, p. 119).
differently than extraverts do. Because of such differences, while 63% of Resident
statistically significant dominant type emerged (Krouse, 2006). Explaining this result,
Krouse (2006) wrote RAs may frequently display extraverted traits on the job, but this
For example, Resident Assistants may appear to be very outgoing and energetic
while interacting with a group of residents, but they may not actually be
extroverted. This process of interaction could be very tiring for them if they
prefer introversion and they may need time alone to reenergize after such
College student leadership idealizes and perhaps requires some level of extraversion.
However, introverted students can and do participate in leadership roles, but there
Conclusion
Personality differences are just one of the many factors comprising the differing
anyone working with students to better acknowledge differences and facilitate learning
In particular, the current research focuses on introverted students, who direct and
derive energy from internal sources. In the college environment, introverted students
19
may face a cultural “extravert ideal” and engage the tasks of emerging adulthood and
involvement and leadership—in ways unique from their extraverted peers. In working
with any student or group of students, it is important to listen to the narratives they
represent as they navigate the tasks of the college experience. Specifically, the present
study explores the experiences of introverted students with an aim to better describe and
Chapter 3
Methodology
understanding from the experiences of several individuals and discover the true essence
of the experience (Creswell, 2012; van Manen, 1990). A phenomenological study results
in the ability “to grasp the nature and significance of this experience in a hitherto unseen
college and introversion—a preference for the inner world and the derivation of energy
from internal sources rather than external sources. Other research, also
college experience: the 2011 study by Nelson et al. of introverts’ and extraverts’ roles in
relationships, the 2012 study by Nelson and Thorne of how introverts and extraverts
become friends, and the 2004 study by Shertzer and Schuhbof students’ perceptions of
leadership, but few studies have connected general aspects of the college experience to
21
the experience of being introverted. The current study thus used a phenomenological
design to identify the themes common to the experiences of introverted college students.
Context
The research took place at a small, faith-based liberal arts institution in the
Midwest. The institution has about 2,000 traditional, undergraduate students and is
highly residential, with approximately 90% of students living on campus for at least three
years. Whole-person focus stands out as an anchor point of the institution, strongly
residence halls and becomes enriched by other opportunities to serve and lead through
highly attended campus traditions and events. The institution prizes its identity as an
Participants
The researcher used purposeful sampling, seeking participants who experience the
participated in the study: five currently enrolled in their fourth year, three in their third
year, and one in her fifth year. The researcher limited participation to upperclassmen
identity and sense of self (Chickering & Reisser, 1993), and they have more college
experience to reflect on and contribute to the data. All participants spent at least three
years living in university residence halls on floors of 30-100 residents and lived with one
to three roommates each year. The researcher sought a majority of participants who
served in a student leadership position or had some other form of involvement (e.g.
22
The researcher selected participants from four groups of students who have taken
(I), sensing (S), intuition (N), thinking (T), feeling (F), judgment (J), and perception
(P)—with the higher raw score of each dichotomous category signifying the student’s
Participants completed the MBTI at least once during their undergraduate years
and received the Myers-Briggs required interpretative training from the faculty member
who supervised the student group requiring completion of the MBTI. With the help of
these faculty members who facilitated the MBTI, the researcher obtained a list of students
who met the qualifications of senior status and introvert scores on the MBTI. The
researcher sent an email to all students who met the qualifications with a description of
the nature and goals of the study and an invitation to participate. Lack of response from
seniors required the researcher to open the invitation to juniors, resulting in the use of
Upon obtaining consent from each participant (see Appendix A), the researcher
around two broad questions: “What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon?
What contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences of the
B for interview protocol) about their experience of introversion in the context of their
environment, and involvement. To ensure clear questions that yielded accurate data, the
researcher conducted a pilot interview and used subsequent feedback to refine the
protocol (Creswell, 2008). The researcher asked follow-up questions for clarity.
Interviews took place in a quiet location free from distractions, and the researcher audio-
recorded the sessions (Creswell, 2013). In order to protect participants, the researcher
stored the data on a password-protected computer that only the researcher could access
exploratory analysis to “obtain a general sense of the data” (Creswell, 2008, p. 250). The
researcher wrote memos in the margins to represent key concepts within the data. The
researcher then grouped the memos into codes and assigned labels to each code before
matching the labels to text segments. The researcher grouped similar codes into similar
themes representing major ideas in the data. The researcher then utilized member
24
checking to verify the accuracy of themes with participants. The results of the study are
terms of introversion (Creswell, 2013). The themes and descriptions inform the
Chapter 4
Results
This study generated rich data pertaining to the experiences of introverted college
students. Participants eagerly shared and demonstrated a deep level of reflection. The
researcher generated protocol questions based on prominent themes from the literature,
which shaped the themes emerging from interview data. Four major themes developed,
friendships, residence hall experience, and involvement and leadership. Advantages and
residence hall experience. Lastly, the sub-themes of challenges, motivation and benefits,
At the beginning of each interview, the participant read the researcher’s definition
of introversion (see Appendix B) and discussed how he or she connected with the
definition. While all participants referred to several aspects of the definition with which
they agreed, eight disagreed with at least one aspect of the definition, pointing to
from socializing with people. Each participant could identify both advantages and
challenges of introversion.
experience as introverts. When shown the definition of introversion, all nine of the
participants agreed they felt reflective and/or internally focused, and most identified their
reflection throughout the interview time itself. For example, Ryan connected lessons
learned from his study abroad semester to other shaping components of his time in
college. For many, the ability to reflect and maintain an internal focus led to growth and
learning and provided a means of processing thoughts and experiences. Describing her
reflective nature, Larissa said, “I think . . . like a really big part of my life is just thinking
really critically about things that are happening within me and, um then as a result how
those are going outward into like behavioral patterns or interactions.” Describing his
inner focus, Matt named the personal growth resulting from internal reflection as one of
I like that I seem to understand myself pretty well, because in my alone time, like
that’s when I’m doing my best thinking. . . . it’s how I know myself. And so I
don’t really have to rely on other people to get that as much . . . . Other people can
give input and it’s helpful, um, but I feel like I know myself really well.
27
Another positive aspect of introversion came as the value of time spent alone,
mentioned that spending time alone allowed them a means of recharging, and many
discussed how much they enjoyed time spent alone. Larissa, for example, thought, “. . .
[It’s] really an amazing thing that I as an introvert am really comfortable with just being
abilities to focus for long periods of time, pay attention, and listen well. Lucas said, “I
mean it’s definitely been an advantage for me in studying just ‘cause I can spend a lot of
the process of recognizing their introversion could prove difficult, especially when they
did not realize the extent of their introversion. For example, Ryan blamed not his
introversion but his lack of awareness of his introversion for the challenges he faced
living in a residence hall: “So it wasn’t necessarily like being in a residence hall was hard
because I was an introvert, but it was hard because I wasn’t as aware that I was
during their first year and changed how they spent their time and approached friendships.
participants recalled feeling pitied during time spent alone, two described feeling
28
forgotten in social settings, and three said others assumed they did not enjoy being
Eleanor described others’ misconceptions that she either did not want to be
I think it’s a common misconception that introverts don’t like being around
people. I’ve had people ask me like, “if you’re an introvert, you seem to do so
well around people.” And I think that’s something that isn’t always like explained
well because I enjoy being around people and I like that time.
Elaborating on elements of introversion she disliked, Larissa implied that some people
introvert um so just feeling . . . that people like pity me because I am alone or that
people are like trying to make me do something I don’t want to do or their idea of
having the right college experience is being out all the time and being with friends
Matt discussed the frustration that comes along with others’ assumptions that he does not
I am frustrated that, I think because I’m an introvert, people don’t think that I
want like group experiences that I like. . . . I would still like to be invited to
things, like I feel like [people think] “oh you know, [Matt] isn’t gonna want to do
about feeling selfish in wanting time or space alone. Three thought of themselves as
weak communicators. Larissa said, “I feel like I can’t express myself, like verbally is
like pretty hard sometimes,” while Sean mentioned he could use “some strengthening in
my small talk conversation sort of style.” Four participants wished they could become
more involved or felt they had missed out on opportunities due to their introversion.
Theme 2: Friendships
detail the role they play in friendships, the preferences they have as they engage in
they discussed at greatest length the role they play in friendships. Eight participants
peace, and a listening ear. For example, Matt said, “I would be able to bring a sense of
calm and like a, more of a—I hate talking about myself like this—but more of a quiet
strength to their lives and peace.” Matt and five other participants also said they often
become sources of advice, comfort, or wisdom for their friends. Describing her role,
Larissa stated, “I mean usually, just general statement: I’m like usually not the one falling
to pieces. So I would be the one who was like helping to put people back together again
or like . . . giving them advice if they need it.” Similarly, Neil said he became “kind of
the mom of the room,” tending “to play more [of a] constant position in those closer
30
friendships, where . . . I like try to ask them a good question a couple times a week, you
introverted roommate as “very reciprocal, too, like sometimes I’m talking about myself
and sometimes she’s talking about herself, and sometimes I’m giving advice, and
felt pushed to involve themselves more in campus events and do spontaneous things.
about his desire to get to know freshmen on his floor, while Eleanor, Neil, and Matt
desired to show care and facilitate growth in the relationships they built through
leadership positions. Describing the significance of floor activities, Matt said, “I love
that it gives me like this in on being their friend, and it lets me get to the point where I
can like have those deeper conversations.” Sean described friendships as one of the most
important and enjoyable parts of his college experience, stating that, without friends, “I’d
just want to get through the four years and then get my degree and leave.”
preferred interacting with friends one on one or in small groups. Lucas said,
It tends to be more I guess small group interactions rather than like a very large
mass of people, just ‘cause at that point . . . it’s harder to actually have a
Additionally, Matt mentioned his preference for one-on-one interactions as one of his
That is one of my favorite parts about . . . who I am, is being able to really
connect with people easily in one on one interactions. Like I feel like I can make
connections with people and really like get down to like who they are, and I think
that’s awesome.
I found it really difficult my freshman and sophomore year, knowing that I had a
lot of like surface level friendships, um but like not knowing how to go deeper
with anyone, and I really found that frustrating at times because I’m not someone
who likes having like, a lot of just like ok friends and just being surrounded by
those, like I would rather have just like a few really solid friends, and I just wasn’t
Finally, participants’ preferences for small groups of friends and depth impacted
their preferences for activities with friends. Five participants mentioned enjoying talking
and having deep conversations or discussions with friends, especially in their residence
halls or around the dinner table. For example, Neil said, “We love watching movies and
um listening to music and stuff. . . . so like a lot of times last year, it was just in our room,
like we’d watch a movie then just have like a natural discussion of it afterwards.”
every participant described the process of how they became friends with some of their
closest friends. Four described the process as slow or gradual, and five attributed the
32
floor. Nina mentioned a friendship formed on the basis of common interests: “We had a
lot of common interests, um knitting yarn in general, spinning and just things that we
were able to talk about, plants, so a lot of common interests, and I guess just general
proximity.”
Heather described the slow process of making friends, noting some ramifications
of the gradual pace: “I’m pretty . . . I take a while to open up to people and like really let
people get to know me, and so it was hard for me to make like friends that I could like
trust fully and count on.” Some participants’ friendships also required multiple
together, living on the same floor, or having mutual friends before becoming friends.
hall. Three sub-themes that emerged from their reflection on residence life included
overall positive experiences within residence life, most categorized their experience into
positive and negative components. For most participants, the most positive aspect of
their experience living in a residence hall was the community. Larissa described her
community as “a really sweet wing, a lot of genuine people,” while Matt concluded that
had.” Though participants enjoyed the overall experience of living in a residence hall,
many mentioned what they disliked about living in a residence hall. Four participants felt
33
particularly challenged to find space for solitude. As she discussed the differences
between living in a suite-style residence hall and living in an apartment building, Larissa
realized that living in the dorm did not suit her personality as well:
I loved living in the dorms so it wasn’t like I ever had like a really bad experience
in the dorms but now that I’m in an apartment I can’t imagine living anywhere
else. I was like, “How did I like live?” There’s always people around and they
were always making noise and they were always barging into my room and so
yeah I’ve really loved apartment life. I love my little area, my room. I love our
living room and it’s just like really peaceful there compared to living in the
dorms.
Participants also held both positive and negative views of their residence hall
activities and events. Five expressed a value of the relationship-building aspect of floor
activities, but many felt uncomfortable in those settings. For example, Lucas, whose
ability “to promote bonding with the wing” but said it “was just out of my comfort zone,”
The institution where the research took place strongly emphasizes residence hall
floor community. Seven participants described the close-knit nature of their residence
hall community and recognized it as a benefit in allowing them to form community and
build friendships more easily. For example, Sean compared his floor community to the
Well I like how [the university] sets up the wings in general, just because of, for
me, I played sports in high school and so I liked being part of a team and I feel
34
like the wing is kind of like a team and you like, you can always hang out with the
guys that are on your wing or girls that are on your wing so I really like that. Um
just being able to not have to find your own friends, but you can just meet them
easily like the first couple weeks of school and then you have a group that you can
always go to.
For Sean, the wing provided the security of a few close friends he could always go to,
researcher asked participants about the roommates they lived with during their time in
college. Two participants described the experience of living with other introverts as easy
and cohesive, as introverted roommates seemed good at “giving each other space.” The
same two participants, plus three others, reflected on experiences living with extraverts.
. . . She just wanted to talk about [her emotions] a lot and I was very
our emotions. . . . I never really voiced that I was like really uncomfortable with
the way that she was doing things [and] she never thought it was a problem.
For Larissa, this experience proved difficult not only because of the differences between
she and her roommate but also because she did not feel comfortable telling her roommate
how those differences impacted her. Four other participants who lived with extraverts
described their roommates as profoundly different from them but did well in adapting to
differences in personality and preference. Neil, for example, lived with two extraverts
. . . that actually ended up working out . . . ’cause like they would just come back
to the room to sleep and you know we’d watch TV together, like yeah, if they
were doing homework they were out, so that kind of like gave me a nice alone
of their roommate relationship that mattered most to participants was the depth of their
relationship, which five participants discussed at great length. Matt, for example,
described his two most recent roommates in terms of the depth of the friendship they
developed and the ways they caused him to experience personal growth.
expectations and pressure associated with living in a residence hall. They referred to the
relationships with everyone on their floor. Heather mentioned the expectation that “you
attend every single wing event” and spend as much time as possible on the wing:
I think . . . it’s good to be involved in the wing, but I don’t think you, I mean I feel
pressured to like do every single event, and like it’s impossible to do everything,
and do homework and stuff. And so I just feel a lot of pressure with that.
Heather also often felt as though the disappointment her wing expressed when she chose
not to participate was blamed on her status as one of the only seniors on her wing,
causing her to feel further misunderstood as an introvert. The participants who described
difficult, and something they did not like about living in a residence hall.
36
Finally, participants described the groups and activities they were involved in
during their time in college. All nine participants held at least one leadership position
during college. Four served as orientation leaders, three as resident assistants, and two in
learning experiences, three in student activities, two in the admissions office, three in
musical groups or theater, and three in clubs related to their major. Each participant
spent at least one year, some all four years, participating in meetings and events related to
with their involvement. Six felt challenged by the amount of time their involvement
required them to spend around people. Eleanor, who served as a resident assistant, and
Larissa, who gave campus tours through the admissions office, both faced difficultly in
having a job that required significant amounts of interaction with people, especially with
strangers or, in Eleanor’s case, with people with whom she may not have chosen to spend
time. Though they encountered challenge, both Eleanor and Larissa viewed these
experiences as valuable for them; they learned to interact with people and thus developed
a greater level of self-awareness. Heather also learned about herself through her
So welcome weekend last year, I like cried all the time because I was so
exhausted from being with people all the time, and like it was just awful. I did not
think I was going to be able to do it . . . but I got through it and it was fine. . . . I
learned a lot about when I need alone time, and where my breaking point is.
Through the challenges of involvement, Heather thus grew as a leader as she more clearly
identified her own strengths and limits. Four participants also described the challenges of
Sub-theme: Motivation and benefits. When asked to describe how they got
involved and what benefits they saw in their involvement, participants provided a range
again because of the impactful relationships she built with freshmen students, while Sean
decided not to continue volunteering at a weekly after-school program because “it was
kind of difficult to build a relationship with the kids.” Similarly, Neil enjoyed his time as
a resident assistant because seeing his events and relational efforts “go well is life-giving
and seeing like good participation and like enjoyment of that is really good.” Other
participants got involved in order to pursue interests such as music, to learn from their
learning and growth, especially on a personal level. Matt captured this concept well:
I think there’s always benefits. Um no matter what you’re involved in. I think you
always learn something, either about yourself or about others, about what you
need to get better at or what you’re already good at. Your strengths and
Ryan also described personal growth, saying his involvement in a culture-focused student
activities group helped him discover many of his own views and ways of thinking.
least one leadership role, the researcher asked them to describe if and how they viewed
themselves as leaders. Eight of the nine participants identified as leaders. They discussed
several of their leadership qualities, and many talked about not fitting the common mold
of a leader. Heather, for example, described herself as a “laidback” leader and said, “I
think I’m more of a quiet leader. . . . I don’t think people would see me as a leader per se,
but um I would say that I’m a leader maybe just in different ways I guess.” Five other
participants described themselves as quiet or less vocal leaders, some viewing this trait as
I’m probably not one of those like loud in your face kind of like always going,
always um like, always around kind of leaders, um like I feel like I see some
people who are just like they never stop and that was not me as a leader, that is
Sean also said he differed from other leaders but struggled to embrace it. When
I guess not in the way that a lot of people view a leader, like in the front, talking
to people and stuff like that. But kind of like a behind the scenes leader I guess. . .
. sometimes I get down on myself for like not being as vocal or whatever, or not
like tear myself down rather than um like building myself up.
39
Other participants described their preference for leading from the background or
rather than being like, I don’t know, up on a podium like talking.…I prefer more
to be interacting on like a more one on one or small group level more than being a
leader in front of like a mass group of people just ‘cause that wouldn’t fit me I
guess.
Referring to their experiences as orientation leaders, Heather and Nina also described
their role as “background” leaders who kept things organized and planned for multiple
outcomes.
While several participants described the benefit of relationships built through their
Um I feel like I’m at my best in leadership positions when I can, when I can have
the opportunity to connect with others. I feel like I can, in a lot of ways, bring out
like the best in others, in those one on one type situations. . . . a strength God’s
given me is to be really like genuine and caring with other people, and I think that
shows itself in leadership in lots of different aspects, but mainly in how I can
described how she let others lead even if she held the leadership position, while Ryan
described his process of realizing that following functions as its own form of leadership:
So then just kind of realizing that like following and being able to follow is like so
overlooked. Um and just the value of that and the value of being able to like do
40
those things at the same time and also like switch between them. . . . like being
able to lead, but then like also follow someone, like tell someone ‘ok can you do
this?’ and then like if you’re working with them, like being subservient to them
almost. Um so just kind of like coming to terms with that and realizing that . . .
For these participants, following provided a way of empowering those they led and
aligned well with their preference for quieter or more laidback leadership.
Summary
experiences in college. In ways both similar to and unique from one another, they
friends who may form friendships slowly and often prefer depth to quantity in social
settings. Participants explained their residence life experiences and presented challenges
activities and the desire for depth in relationships in the residence hall setting. Each
through both challenges and benefits of involvement, and could express a clear sense of
his or her style and identity leader based on leadership strengths and preferences.
41
Chapter 5
Discussion
Introduction
college students. The college setting, particularly residential college campuses, often
development. The current study focused specifically on three key aspects of the college
experience: friendships, the residential environment, and involvement. With each highly
social aspect, the present research sought to understand how introversion might influence
the way a student engages with friendship, residence life, and involvement.
provided reflection on their college experience. Themes from the literature shaped both
the interview protocol and themes from the research data: participants’ description of
Focusing on these four themes, the following sections connect findings from the literature
and the present study, provide implications for student affairs practice, explore further
describing what creates and draws energy. Introverts focus energy internally, on
42
thoughts, ideas, and internal experiences (Jung et al., 1953; Laney, 2002; Myers &
Myers, 2010). Because their energy focuses more on thoughts, they often have less
energy for external stimuli, such as social interactions (Eysenck, 1970; Lieberman &
Rosenthal, 2001).
with some aspect of the researcher’s definition and related to other aspects to varying
degrees. While most participants liked and felt recharged by solitude, many also enjoyed
time with people. Heather, for example, said, “I don’t think I always . . . get energy from
being alone. I think there are other times where I do get energy from being with other
people.” As many of the participants’ campus involvement indicated, introverts can and
do choose to engage successfully in large group activities and social events; they might
even seem loud or become the center of attention. For example, Larissa’s involvement in
residence life, admissions, and improvisational theatre often put her in the spotlight;
despite some discomfort, she ultimately thrived as she facilitated floor activities, gave
on a spectrum, defined their introversion in different ways from one another, and often
between introversion and shyness. While shy people choose to withdraw from social
levels and preference for time alone (Cheek & Buss, 1981). Eleanor and Heather, for
example, both enjoyed spending time with friends and members of their residence hall
43
communities but regularly chose to spend time alone for reenergizing. Similar to the
findings of Bowker and Raja (2010), the students in the present study chose to withdraw
from social settings when they preferred solitude but did not experience the anxiety,
While research often defines introverts in terms of what they lack (Bowker &
Raja, 2010; Gudjonsson et al., 2004; Harrington & Loffredo, 2010; Lischetzke & Eid,
2006), the participants in the current study identified several advantages of introversion.
Their internal focus yielded rich reflection from which they gained high levels of self-
awareness and experienced personal growth. They seemed thoughtful in their words and
able to engage easily in deep conversation. They felt comfortable working alone and able
was wrong when they chose to spend time alone or that they did not want invitations to
large, potentially uncomfortable group gatherings. Others might have thought their
introverted peers did not have the “right college experience” because they did not always
go out or spend all their time with friends. Not only did this create pressure to experience
college in a certain way, it also formed how introverts in the study thought negatively of
themselves. Because they felt pressured to constantly spend time with people, they
thought time alone was selfish. Because social and academic performance often seems
measured by verbal ability, introverts thought the quality of their communication did not
Introverts as Friends
previous research and provided some unprecedented results. Similar to what Nelson and
Thorne (2012) described, introverts in the current study experienced the process of
becoming friends gradually. They enjoyed time with friends close to home, usually in
their residence halls, slowly welcomed outsiders, and provided steadiness, calm, peace, a
listening ear, “quiet strength,” and advice in friendships. In the context of friendships
with other introverts, participants seemed mutually reinforced—they felt listened to and
could enjoy shared interests with one another. In friendships with extraverts, introverts
felt challenged to engage more with the social environment of college and spend more
time with people. Friendships with extraverts prompted personal growth but could feel
taxing when participants desired space with fewer people. Introverts and extraverts
introverts provided stability and safe space. Extraverts and introverts became helpful
friends for each other, offering challenge and support. These findings built on the study
value of relationships. Participants desired to invest in others and viewed friendships and
community as one of the most important aspects of their college experience. They
wanted to know people deeply and to see people brought together in community.
Introverts as Residents
identifying relationships and their experience of community as the biggest factor behind
45
their satisfaction. Residence hall activities helped in building relationships but could
become uncomfortable. For example, Lucas’s experience with floor traditions requiring
valuable in terms of his desire to participate in the close community on his floor. While
he and other participants experienced the imbalanced levels of challenge and support that
came with living in a highly social setting described by Rodger and Johnson (2005) and
Schroeder and Jackson (1987), he did not experience any lack in sense of belonging.
environment beneficial because it gave them the opportunity to develop friendships with
introverted roommates seemed good at giving each other space, while extraverted
discomfort with their roommates but often cited this challenge as a source of learning and
growth. To most participants, the most important aspect of the roommate relationship
was not introversion or extraversion but the depth of their relationship with their
roommate. These findings add to the limited literature on the influence of introversion-
differences between introverts and extraverts’ study and sleep habits (Schroeder &
Jackson, 1987), the present findings add to those of Foubert et al. (1998), who described
the importance of the roommate relationship for overall satisfaction in the residence hall.
46
Personality differences do impact the way roommates function, but perhaps the most
important factor, at least for introverts, remains the degree to which roommates form
activities and leadership roles. Together, participants represented many different types of
performing. These involvements required participants to adjust to new places, build close
participants, but most chose to become involved because they valued relationships and
people or to interact with people in ways beyond participants’ comfort zone. Participants
often pursued such challenges out of a desire for personal development. While this
challenge did not prevent participants from becoming involved, it did provide participants
with an awareness of their preference for small group or one-on-one interactions. Many
of the roles participants found themselves in, such as orientation leader or resident
assistant, required large group leadership, but many participants found ways to lead out
of their strengths and preferences. Matt and Neil, for example, found purpose in large
floor activities because of the initial connection they made with residents that allowed
amounts of time with people also gave participants reason to find ways to recharge
healthily, similar to what Krouse (2006) described in a study of the impact of resident
47
assistants’ Myers-Briggs types on their leadership. The current findings also confirm the
conclusion by Toma (2015) that introverted students found congruence less by changing
personality and more by selecting environments suited to their preferences. As the results
of the present research convey, introverted students selected environments suited to their
personality, not necessarily altogether avoiding highly social leadership roles but instead
finding space within their roles to operate out of their strengths and preferences.
While Shertzer and Schuh (2004) found that college students thought extraverts
the present study had less constraining perceptions of their ability to lead. Introverts see
themselves as leaders but may not see themselves as fitting the mold of college student
leadership. They seem laidback and quiet and enjoy behind the scenes leadership.
weakness. Sean, for example, expressed disappointment in himself for not being a
“typical leader,” while others more easily embraced their identities as “quiet leaders,”
finding ways to capitalize on their abilities to connect with people on an individual level.
Some participants led out of their personalities by following. As leaders, when they
allowed others to lead and chose to follow their peers, they could to empower their peers
While the present research defines introversion as a preference for the inner world
and the focus and derivation of energy from internal sources, one must recognize that an
introvert does not always remain quiet, always process internally, or always prefer time
finding proves important for the higher educational setting. How students derive and
focus their energy influences how they learn and live during college, but because all
people possess some level of introversion and some level of extraversion, educators
educators and student affairs professionals should remain mindful of how personality
impacts learning style, making space for students who learn or function best in solitude,
for those who learn or function best with other people, and for introverts and extraverts to
grow and learn in ways that might differ from what they prefer.
professionals support and challenge students in ways better suited to their personalities.
introversion could help student affairs professionals better empower that student to lead
out of his or her strengths, with less pressure on an introvert to fit an extraverted mold of
perspectives, the findings of the current study merit staff development focused on how
student leaders’ personality traits inform appropriate methods of challenge and support.
Development in this direction should also prioritize the importance of the language used
49
to describe introverts, paying close attention to avoid language that implies deficiency in
In this study, introverts felt satisfied by their residence hall experiences because
faced as introverts in the residence hall included the challenge to find quiet space for
solitude, as well as the pressure to participate in residence hall activities and to befriend
everyone on the floor. They felt that others seemed disappointed when they chose not to
extraverts, making space for both relaxed, small group interactions like game nights in
the hall or small group movie or book discussions, and for high energy, large group
hall environments, practitioners should consider physical space and whether or not
formation and sense of belonging in the college setting. Colleges and universities often
provide fast-paced programs for first-year students during their first week or weekend on
campus, full of opportunities to meet and interact with other new students. While these
programs may prove helpful for meeting people, they also often feel overwhelming and
draining, especially for introverted students. If students who prefer introversion form
proves crucial, especially for first-year students, to meet other students and build
extraverts should thus inform the practice of student affairs professionals, particularly
(2004) suggested that “colleges and universities should spend time reflecting on how the
environment helps to shape how their students perceive leadership” (p. 127). The
findings of the current research provide reason to extend Shertzer and Schuh’s
suggestion. Colleges and universities should spend time reflecting on how campus
leading, and becoming involved. As many participants noted, the campus culture of the
institution at which the present study took place favored extraversion. If student affairs
professionals desire to make space for and develop students with all types of
personalities, they must consider ways to create balanced environments in which both
As one potential limitation, this study used in-person interviews. While introverts
typically feel more comfortable in one-on-one settings than in group settings, some
introverts feel even more comfortable expressing thoughts in writing. The use of essay
questions in further research on the experiences of introverted students may yield more
detailed or accurate responses. Another limitation of this study came with the
researcher’s familiarity with some of the participants. Because some participants knew
the researcher from shared experiences, they may have felt more comfortable disclosing
their thoughts and feelings with a familiar person or less comfortable disclosing
judgments of experiences they shared with the researcher. A third limitation emerged in
51
understanding of their MBTI results. Participants came from four different student
groups that utilized three variations of the MBTI. The four different student groups
experienced varying interpretations of their MBTI results and thus had varying levels of
conducted the study at an institution heavily focused on leadership and community, and
every participant was involved in a leadership role. Institutional focus may have strongly
Uninvolved introverts may experience college differently than introverts who have found
Because of its relatively unprecedented nature, the focus of this study remained
especially broad. Future studies could hone in on any specific aspect of the college
experience discussed in this study. For example, an entire study on the roommate
resident assistants could yield results that would continue to inform the practice of
resident directors. Further research could also compare the experiences of introverted
students with those of extraverted students to understand more specifically the unique
primary school, but few studies focus particularly on the university setting, which, like
other academic settings, has often become dominated by group work and discussion.
Future research should explore how introversion impacts the way students experience
identity development and spiritual development. Future studies could explore how
Conclusion
residence life, and involvement. With a desire to provide living and learning
opportunities balanced for the preferences of all personality types, the results of this study
provide informed ways for educators to challenge and support introverted students
introverts in varying ways and thus experienced friendships, residence halls, and
involvement in varying ways; however, they shared common motivations, hopes, and
challenges. They experienced unique pressure and challenges but also enjoyed many
aspects of their experiences, learned about themselves, and deeply valued participating in
the community they found in college. In short, introverted students could to grow into
their own authentic selfhood, discovering and living, learning, and leading out of a truer
sense of their limits and potentials (Palmer, 2000). The findings of this study encourage
personality impacts students’ experiences and how they as practitioners might foster
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
066X.55.5.469
https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf
Bair, D. (2003). Jung: A biography. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
Barry, C. M., Nelson, L. J., & Christofferson, J. L. (2013). Asocial and afraid: An
Bauer, K. W., & Liang, Q. (2003). The effect of personality and precollege characteristics
Blimling, G. S. (2015). Student learning in college residence halls: What works, what
Bowker, J. C., & Raja, R. (2010). Social withdrawal subtypes during early adolescence in
010-9461-7
54
Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking. New
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
Falwal, J. (2012, April 13). College and the introvert. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://college.usatoday.com/2012/04/13/college-and-the-introvert/
Foubert, J. D., Tepper, R., & Morrison, D. R. (1998). Predictors of student satisfaction in
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership
Grandpre, E. A. (1995). Comparison of the real and ideal perceptions of a student living
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Bragason, O. O., Einarsson, E., & Valdimarsdottir,
Harkins, S., Becker, L. A., & Stonner, D. (1975). Extraversion-introversion and the
Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that
relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. Internet and Higher
Helgoe, L. (2008). Introvert power: Why your inner life is your hidden strength.
doi:10.1037/h0031699
Jung, C., Read, H., Fordham, M., & Adler, G. (1953). The collected works of C. G. Jung.
Krouse, L.A. (2006). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles of resident assistants
Exchange. (1720)
56
Laney, M. O. (2002). The introvert advantage: How to thrive in an extrovert world. New
Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who likes
Lischetzke, T., & Eid, M. (2006). Why extraverts are happier than introverts: The role of
6494.2006.00405.x
Lynch, A. Q. (1987). Type development and student development. In J.A. Provost & S.
McCroskey, J. C., Burroughs, N. F., Daun, A., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Correlates of
127–137. doi:10.1080/01463379009369749
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual:
A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo
Myers, I., & Myers, P. (2010). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain
522–538. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00671.x
Nelson, P. A., & Thorne, A. (2012). Personality and metaphor use: How extraverted and
Nelson, P. A., Thorne, A., & Shapiro, L. A. (2011). I’m outgoing and she’s reserved: The
Palmer, P. J. (2000). Let your life speak: Listening to the voice of vocation. San
Pannapacker, W. (2012, April 15). Screening out the introverts. The Chronicle of Higher
Introverts/131520/
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and
Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict
doi:10.1353/csd.2003.0008
58
Pritchard, M. E., Wilson, G. S., & Yamnitz, B. (2007). What predicts adjustment among
Provost, J. A., & Anchors, S. (1987). Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in
Raynor, D. A., & Levine, H. (2009). Associations between the Five-Factor Model of
doi:10.1080/03634520903505936
Rodger, S. C., & Johnson, A. W. (2005). The impact of residence design on freshman
Salisbury, M. (2014, May 1). Colleges should pay more attention to students’ social
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New
higher education (pp. 65–88). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
59
Swenson, L. M., Nordstrom, A., & Hiester, M. (2008). The role of peer relationships in
doi:10.1353/csd.0.0038
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
Watson, J., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Rejection sensitivity, social withdrawal, and loneliness
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.0092
60
Appendix A
Informed Consent
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Definition of Introversion:
Introverts focus energy and derive energy from internal sources rather than
external sources (Jung et al., 1953; Laney, 2002; Myers & Myers, 2010). They are
“oriented primarily toward the inner world; thus they tend to focus their energy on
concepts, ideas, and internal experiences” (p. 6).
Introverts prefer intimate friendships and depth in conversation (Cain, 2012;
Laney, 2002; Nelson et al., 2011). They prefer “richness” to “muchness” (Laney, 2002,
p. 24). They prefer listening to talking, often express themselves better in writing, and
think deeply before they talk or act (Cain, 2012; DiTiberio & Hammer, 1993; Helgoe,
2008; Quenk, 2009). Because of their devotion of energy to “the inner world of ideas,
reflection, and internal experiences” (Quenk, 2009, p. 8), introverts are energized by time
spent alone. Other words frequently used to describe introverts include reserved,
cautious, focused, quiet, and reflective (Cain, 2012; Cheek & Buss, 1981; Gudjonsson,
Sigurdsson, Bragason, Einarsson, & Valdimarsdottir, 2004; Pannapacker, 2012).
1. How do you personally connect with the provided definition of introversion?
a. How have these qualities influenced your time in college?
2. Describe your overall college experience. What have been some of the
challenging and shaping aspects of your experience and why?
3. Where have you lived on campus? Describe the environment of each of the places
you lived.
a. What was the physical arrangement of your floor (traditional or suite
style)?
b. What was the community like on your floor?
c. What did you like and not like about living there?
63